If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Bullshit.......A member of my family is a psychiatrist, and sat on the DSM 4 committee, when the document was drafted......the exclusion of homosexuality from the list of emotional disorders was purely politics. A good portion of the perceived role (among the members) of the APA at the time was to "mainstream" certain behaviors deemed relatively harmless to society, and difficult to treat, in order to minimize the "social stigma" attached to them, which the majority of them believed was "within acceptable behavioral limits".......a purely arbitrary criteria, with no scientific studies or evidence to back up the decision.

CAVEAT: I don't consider psychiatry to be a "science".......it is a psuedo-science.

There were no theraputic considerations at all at that time.......it's also interesting to note that a significant porportion of the committee members were homosexuals themselves.......talk about conflict of interest.

This entire effort is tantamount to the AMA forming a committee, and announcing that breast cancer is no risk to women, in order to lighten their patient load, and leave a few more days open during the week for golf.

Homosexuality is, and always be deviant behavior, regardless of what the DSM states........it's abnormal, and we can certainly debate whether it has genetic or life-experience roots (or both), and whether it can be successfully treated, but it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be categorized as "normal". To the extent that both homosexuality and pedophilia are deviant (sexual) behaviors, they have similiar psychological roots.

ADDITIONAL CAVEAT: I have no personal axe to grind with homosexuals, so long as they keep their activities personal, live productive lives, and don't attempt to redefine societies institutions, or publicly establish their entire identities by their sexual preference.

doc

Bouncy, bouncy.

Your relative who allegedly sat on the DSM IV committee had nothing to do with removing homosexuality from the manual. It was removed long before that edition was
published. I have a DSM III-R, published in the mid-80s, and homosexuality is not listed in that one as a psychological disorder.

Your relative who allegedly sat on the DSM IV committee had nothing to do with removing homosexuality from the manual. It was removed long before that edition was
published. I have a DSM III-R, published in the mid-80s, and homosexuality is not listed in that one as a psychological disorder.

Again bullshit.....nowhere in my remarks did I state that my relative was responsible for removing it from the DSM 4, only that he participated, and that its removal was purely politics, and there is still (to this day) heated debate about it, there have been firm concerted efforts on behalf of many of the committee to reinstate that diagnosis since it was removed. Political correctness has always prevailed.

I will admit it, I know gays who are conservative...and they don't bother me as much as libs do. Except for someone I know very well, who has been a conservative all her life, but has recently started voting for Liberals because of the one single issue that affects her, which is gay marriage. She has been with her partner for 30 years, so I can sympathize with her view. But that doesn't stop me from urging her not the be single issue voter...but I know she will vote for Obama, especially since he recently came out in favor of gay "marriage". If they want the same rights as married couples, I don't see why they can't be satisfied with civil unions. Why the need to be married (a religious sacrament) is beyond me when you can receive the same benefits with civil unions.

Saying that, I don't believe it is normal behavior. It IS still deviant no matter how you slice it, it is an evolutionary dead end, it goes against human nature and multiplication of the species. When gays can figure out how to procreate without taking the parts of the opposite sex, then I will perhaps consider it normal behavior. But honestly, I don't care what people do in their sex lives, my issue is their "look at me, I'm GAY, and you have to LIKE it" that's hard to swallow, no pun.

How is the question of victimization irrelevant when the original discussion was about pedophelia being considered just another sexual orientation?

Easy, see below.

Originally Posted by me

Despite your attempts to drag this off of the original premise of the thread, I'll try and break the context down for you:

1. Those who pushed normalization of homosexuality as a sexual orientation were able to make the change through agitation and political pressure. The fact that it is not natural and is deviant behavior was rejected in favor of "social issues of the day".

2. Because of the history of activists seeking change through agitation/infiltration and the determination that their particular deviancy cannot be "cured", there is precedence for pedophiles to start seeking their particular perversion as a sexual orientation.

3. There is a slippery slope and we are on it. The line should have been drawn and not crossed in 1973 so we don't have to hear this bullshit that has been pointed out in the OP. Once we accepted one type of deviant behavior as "normal", the door is open for others to try and run through.

Get it now?

Deviant behavior is not necessarily a psychological disorder.

Deviant behavior is not a psychological disorder? Noonwitch, why are you allowed anywhere near children? Seriously, if you can't see the utter absurdity of that statement, I question your ability to make rational decisions.

It just means "abnormal" which isn't any more of a diagnosis, it's a description based on the assumption that there is such a thing as "normal", whether it's describing sexuality or other issues.

So there are no standards for civilization and society, just whatever you want it to mean? You're kidding, right? Isn't this the kind of thinking that has us in a place where child molesters feel they have a justifiable complaint that their perversion is "natural"? Do you not see this? Has liberalism so blinded you that you can't make rational, reasoned connections when they have been put right in front of you?

Incidentally, it's not "abnormal", it's "unnatural". Many things not considered "normal" are perfectly rational while unnatural is, well, unnatural.

Pedophelia is not a sexual orientation, it is a sexual attraction to children.

Neither is homosexuality. Homosexuality is a sexual attraction to members of the same sex, not a sexual orientation.

The thing that should concern everyone here is how the Pedo crowd is going about justifying this stuff. This guy is approaching it from understanding and empathy. But some of the real messed up are using the Children as the voices of wanting to be liberated and desiring a relationship with adults.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown